2 – Europe keeps losing Moldova
BSSB.BE ceps.eu/ 09.05.2016
The sorry tale of EU involvement
Since 2009, when the Alliance for European Integration came to power, the EU’s reaction to the misdeeds of successive Moldovan governments has been lamentable. The EU refrained from criticising Moldova’s elite but chose instead to throw money at the country’s problems.
During 2007-2013 the EU allocated more than €482million to Moldova from its European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) alone. In fact, Moldova received the highest support per capita in the Eastern neighbourhood.
This support was intended to strengthen democratic development; good governance and rule of law; poverty reduction; and trade and sustainable development. For the period 2004-2020 EU support may amount to as much as €746million. Beyond the neighbourhood instrument, the EU and its member states were decisive in securing €1.9 billion worth of grants and loans at the donors conference in 2010.
Besides financial aid Moldova’s elite was also rewarded politically for paying lip service to the EU. EU representatives went so far as to term Moldova the “success story”, “poster child” and “front-runner” of the Eastern Partnership.
- For years Moldova’s elite successfully misused these terms for the purpose of legitimising their misdeeds for the domestic audience.
- The EU’s political capital in Moldova was further used up after the parliamentary elections 30 November 2014. The so-called pro-European coalition won the elections amid serious allegations about electoral violations.
- In its desire to maintain the status quo, the EU statement brushed off the electoral problems and invited the pro-European parties to undertake “the swift formation of an inclusive and accountable government.”
Through its support for so-called pro-European coalition partners and silence about the abuses of the elite that unofficially rule Moldova’s coalition, in effect the EU became a handmaiden to the diminishing support for Moldova’s European integration.
With the ratification process of the Association Agreement coming to an end and in view of the dismal state of Moldovan politics, the new EU leadership felt compelled, finally, to change its policy towards Moldova. The Council conclusions of 15 February 2016 are representative of this recent shift. The EU foreign ministers now clearly and publically demand from the government that they “prioritise reforms aimed at addressing the politicisation of state institutions, systemic corruption, public administration reform aimed inter alia at enhancing the effectiveness of regulatory bodies, transparency and accountability in the management of public finances as well as with regard to policy making.”
Since 2009 the EU supported the rule of the Alliance for European Integration, which was led by corrupt oligarchs who proclaimed themselves to be pro-European. It should have come as no surprise that Moldovans associated the EU with their home-grown crooked politicians and that as a result support for European integration has declined dramatically in recent years.
The recent shift in the EU’s approach towards Moldova’s so-called pro-European government might be too little, too late. Moldovans are voicing their dissatisfaction with the government through mass protests on the streets of Chisinau.
It might be high time for the EU to consider letting the so-called pro-European coalition fall in the near term, for the sake of safeguarding Moldova’s European agenda in the long term. Ratifying and moving ahead with the implementation of the Association Agreement and the DCFTA in no way gives the Moldovan government, or that of any other country, a licence to abuse its powers, and should not be supported by the EU.
Euroscepticism Geopolitics Nations Video Conflicts
* jurnal.md – Global sentiment in the Moldovan politics –
The Republic of Moldova needs reforms, and the Government have to assume itself engagements. Law must be one for all, the politicians should think more about national interest. Now does not matter the definitions with which you juggle at the meetings with the partners – it matter whether you are pro-Moldova, whether you are pro-your own people, whether you are pro-democratic society
* VIDEO – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqWwVhZJ1no – Why Journalism Is Important: Christopher Hitchens on Media– Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky proposed a concrete model for the filtering processes (biases) of mainstream media, especially in the United States, called the propaganda model. They tested this empirically and presented extensive quantified evidence supporting the model. Communication scholar Robert W. McChesney, inspired in part by the work of Chomsky and Herman, has linked the failures of the mainstream press primarily to corporate ownership, pro-corporate public policy, and the myth of “professional journalism.”